| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 12/25/2012 : 14:00:44
|
This year's BAFTA voters are considering two films adapted from award-winning novels set in India each wafted along on the narrative of magical realism. The first is Midnight's Children. This is the second.
Happily it's more successful than Mehta's film in condensing some 400 pages into just over two hours of screen-time. Like Midnight's Children it covers decades, but its focus is far clearer, and the most significant section takes the form of a dangerous yet enchanting sea adventure.
The most significant reason for the film's success is the comparative objectivity of David Magee's adaptation and most especially Ang Lee's remarkable vision, unhindered by too much reverence for the material.
That it also has scored higher in the box office stakes has partly to do with the greater financial success of the book, and distributor Fox's publicity allocation that favoured one over the other. It also has a greater cultural appeal to white western audiences and a less intrusive narration.
From the start of his amazing directorial career, Taiwanese born Lee has always mastered the combination of intimate relationships, a respect for story, and a sense of cinematic scale - delighting emotion and intellect in a feast for the eyes.
He's had his work cut out presenting Yann Martel's tale of how a young Indian lad is forced to flee with his family across the world to a completely different life in Canada, by way of a sea voyage whose perils destroy all former plans.
It's no spoiler that the family of Pi Patel run a zoo within the Botanical Gardens of the coastal city of Pondicherry whose Indian Ocean climate rivals that of the French Riviera. Reflecting its post-colonial past, French is still an official language there, so when the Patels choose French-speaking Montreal as a destination, it's justified.
The intriguing tale of Pi's journey is book-ended by his grown-up encounter with people wanting to explain and nit-pick his account.
He has, after all, sanctioned his story with the caveat its very existence proves the presence of a deity. Since we learn that as a child he immersed himself in comparative religion, we're led on by the expectation of such proof and what form it might take - we're beckoned whether or not we ourselves are believers.
For, let's face it, some of the events we witness strain credibility to the max. And surely, we're forced to wonder, what might be alternate explanations.
Both Martel and Lee gain their strongest support from three extraordinary elements: the acting debut of philosophy student Suraj Sharma as Pi; Chilean cinematographer Claudio Miranda; and the jaw-dropping special effects from Rhythm and Hues Studios, supported by ten other companies.
Lee's treatment of this provocative material was never intended to "prove" Pi's contention of the truth of the super-natural. Like Martel's novel it deals with the nature of belief and the role that plays in shaping our lives. In that sense it's about the responsibility for destiny.
For a cine-treat, your destiny should include a slice of Pi.
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 12/25/2012 : 22:08:22
|
| If you haven't seen it yet, please try to catch it in 3D. |
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 01/03/2013 : 23:52:13
|
I think I may just be the only person on the planet who feels this way but Life of Pi left me wanting.
Okay, the visuals are stunning- maybe the most beautiful film I've ever seen, in fact. And the 3D is about as close to perfection as I've seen achieved, almost like each frame was hand-crafted to be just the right distance away- nothing was ever too close or too distant, yet there was so much depth to the images.
But... I found myself coming out of it afterwards thinking "Was that it?". A kid on a boat with a tiger for almost two hours, slowly building up a rapport- only to be told at the end it meant nothing to the tiger. Sure, there was a happy ending, but not in any way a magical ending that could only be the work of a higher power. Colourful imagery aside, the story (whether you choose it to be true or not) didn't even seem all that fantastical except for the slight distraction of a (inexplicably human-shaped) carnivorous island populated by meercats.
I so very much wanted to enjoy this film. What did I miss? |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/04/2013 : 01:40:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I think I may just be the only person on the planet who feels this way but Life of Pi left me wanting.
Okay, the visuals are stunning- maybe the most beautiful film I've ever seen, in fact. And the 3D is about as close to perfection as I've seen achieved, almost like each frame was hand-crafted to be just the right distance away- nothing was ever too close or too distant, yet there was so much depth to the images.
But... I found myself coming out of it afterwards thinking "Was that it?". A kid on a boat with a tiger for almost two hours, slowly building up a rapport- only to be told at the end it meant nothing to the tiger. Sure, there was a happy ending, but not in any way a magical ending that could only be the work of a higher power. Colourful imagery aside, the story (whether you choose it to be true or not) didn't even seem all that fantastical except for the slight distraction of a (inexplicably human-shaped) carnivorous island populated by meercats.
I so very much wanted to enjoy this film. What did I miss?
Try - if you get a chance - to replay the final conversations with the researchers. There's a significant exchange about which version of the story you'd prefer. And why it's so tempting to go for the less mundane. But I think you're right in a way -- Martel's book is as much about the function of art as anything. And while that's intriguing in a book - a film isn't really the right vehicle - so it's confusing. The human shape of the island is a big clue here. Magical realism invites you to forget the explicable. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/30/2013 : 21:43:06
|
| I saw it, I loved it, I want to see it again. It reminded me of MELANCHOLIA or TREE OF LIFE: dreamlike, beautiful, not sure I caught every nuance [as in a real, nighttime dream], but happy that I had the experience. I couldn't begin to pick it apart before at least one more screening, b/c I was far too busy drinking it all in. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/06/2013 : 05:03:38
|
I didn't find it confusing, but you really did need to be paying attention to the conversation near the end (between a grown Pi and the researcher). I had the advantage of watching this last night (I haven't read the book) at home, so I replayed the end to make sure I'd understood everything. Listen to the end a couple of times and go over it in your head and there really is no way of not understanding what this movie is about.
By the time the island appears it's clear that we're not dealing with a 'real' world any more, it's a fantasy world. Near the end Pi presents a second story that involves no fantasy whatsoever (although it is a rather nasty story). Which story do you prefer, unpleasant reality or a feel-good fantasy?
BTW the tiger not-looking-back is significant. He 'leaves' once Pi had rejoined civilisation.
To ram it home, here's some confirmation on the tiger (you don't get this in the movie):-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parker_%28shipwrecked%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Pi#Richard_Parker
8/10 and one of those rare movies I'll probably see again. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Life of Pi
